Marc Myers writes daily on jazz legends and legendary jazz recordings

April 25, 2011

My Stereo System

Readers constantly ask what kind of system I use to listen to music. Some emailers grouse about the coldness of CDs, others about the dimness of downloads while still others insist that LPs still rule. All may be true, but I'm quite content with my iTunes library. That's probably because my system is pretty tricked out to expose nearly all the information in each music file. Here's the current setup in my office:

iTunes library. I currently have 30,000 tracks in my iTunes library. But this total grows daily since I add CDs and downloads constantly. A good percentage of the recordings in my library are out of print or they are rare—meaning they were never released digitally or at all. So my iTunes library is rather valuable, meaning I'd hate to lose it due to a computer crash. As a result, I store my iTunes library on an external hard drive—not on my computer's hard drive where it would be trapped if anything happened to my laptop.

My rips are imported in the Apple Lossless Encoder format to maximize sonic duplication. When downloading, I take what I can get, which often is mp3.

My gear: I have a LaCie d2 Quadra Hard Disk 2TB (two terabytes, meaning 2,000 GB) [pictured above]. I bought this one because it runs silently all day long and remains cool to the touch. It's hooked up to my computer through an 800 firewire cable. I back up weekly to a black LaCie Hard Disk Quadra 2 TB [pictured right], which costs less but it is just for backup.

CD/DVD burner. I wore out the CD player in my laptop about two years ago. Rather than have it fixed, I simply bought an external burner. This provides two fabulous benefits. For one, my computer isn't overheated whenever I play a CD or DVD. For another, the unit rips (meaning to import a CD) and burns to my iTunes library twice as fast as my laptop did. This workhorse is hooked up to my laptop through a USB port.

My gear: An Iomega Super DVD Writer 24x Dual-Format Drive. It will play and burn CDs.

Stereo system. My office stereo system (a term that probably betrays my age) packs punch and displays lots of sonic detail. Hooked up to my integrated receiver is a digital-to-analog audio converter as well as a pair of monitor speakers. I connect my Mac to my system via a digital optical cable that slips into my headphone jack and connects to the back of the converter. The headphone jack on my Mac doubles as an optical digital out.

So, my iTunes music files fly out through the cable and into the converter, which unbundles the digital information and pumps it into my receiver, which pushes the information through the speakers. Much of the information coming out of my speakers would not be heard if not for the converter.

My gear: I have an Arcam Solo mini compact integrated stereo receiver from the U.K., a Benchmark DAC1 converter, a Toslink digital optical cable, and a pair of B&W monitor speakers.

Turntable. To prove I'm not a complete philistine, I bought a turntable recently that I use occasionally.

My gear: I have a white Pro-Ject Debut III, but I swapped out the existing black platter for a clear Acryl-it platter the color of a Cryst-o-Mint Lifesaver. There's no fidelity issue with the platter swap. It was just a matter of style.

The point of all of this is that digital files can sound better than anything you own when the right gear is hooked up to fully unpackage the digital data and display it properly. Next additions: A McIntosh MA6300 and a B&W subwoofer.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I enjoyed reading about your system, Marc, and you are not alone in your apparent preference for digital. However, the fact that you opened your piece with the image of a (beautiful) Phillips vacuum tube, suggests to me an inner desire for the magic of analogue. Don't fight it man!
(BTW...your choice of turntables is one of the better values on the current market. Pair it with a good cart like an Ortofon Blue, and enjoy the spin!)

With so many factors involved in recording and reproduction, the analog vs. digital debate will always be inconclusive. To further complicate matters, modern recordings usually involve both analog and digital processing to some extent. Everything is back to analog when it comes out of your speakers, then your nervous system converts it back to digital. Not withstanding the above, I also imagine that I hear differences; especially at high volume levels where digital recordings tend to get harsh, and analog ones can be noisy.

A couple of weeks ago I picked up a used Ed Bickert album (1976) for $3. I keep the turntable for these finds. But I think there's an irony built in to the "perfect" system sound, and that is that it can't replicate the live sound. Not that the live sound is better, in terms of sound quality; far from it. So what's good? There's a lot more to listening to music than high tech clarity. When you hear a jazz trio in a club, you hear distracting sounds, noises, talking, glasses clinking, fingers on the bass strings like nails on a chalkboard, laughter, shouts, breaking glass, sound from the street or sidewalk maybe. All these sounds are part of the music that even a live recording can't capture faithfully, nor should try to. Ignorance of this is what has trashed Classical music, where the audience listens essentially as if they were in some sort of suspended animation. Systems are seductive. Real music is too, but it's got the warts and the hairs sticking out, the dry skin, the ringing in the ears. There's music, and there's the sound of music, maybe not the same thing.

About

Marc Myers writes on music and the arts for The Wall Street Journal. He is author of "Why Jazz Happened" (Univ. of Calif. Press). Founded in 2007, JazzWax was named the 2015 "Blog of the Year" by the Jazz Journalists Association.